D&D 5E Weighing in on 5e

[JoeGKushner]

For me, there are a lot of things that WoTC can do to make 5e more apparently useful.

1. Embrace the OGL.

2. Don't badmouth 4e to showcase 5e.

3. Don't lie to your fanbase. For example, telling them that the DDI will be updated soon when in fact it's going to be completely changed.

4. Have all of your people telling the same story. Don't have three fourths of them talking about how things are going this way because it makes things universally accessible to PCs and Macs and then have someone else talk about how changes are being made to cut down on piracy.

5. Leave the campaign settings alone. No 100 year advancement of timelines or other such stupidity.

 

[DarkLord Of DForce]

Just a thought...not adding pro or con to all the feats, paths, items etc that can make a character "optimized" argument, but...in a way, doesn't this help reflect how in real life you're gonna have levels of greatness, not so great , and absolutely dismal levels?

I mean, in real life, someone who wants to get better at something will take training, study, conditioning, buy or acquire better equipment etc, while others are perfectly happy to do the same role or job with not nearly as much training and mediocre equipment.

It would seem strange to me, to play in a system that, no matter how good or how bad a player was, their characters all played effectively the same way.

At our own groups sessions, we get a lot of complaints that there are too many options. My son and I just look at each other. We *like* choice, and lots of it. We both would like to see WOTC do something with the outdated feats, and the overlapping feats. Just clean it up already.

Hope everyone understands what I'm trying to say.

 

[RHGreen]

They don't give her the title, but her job is "Female Roleplayer Representitive." It is quite an important job.

Her job is to attract females into gaming and make it cooler.

Cool is where the women are.


(I think?)

 

[Crazy Jerome]

3. Don't lie to your fanbase. For example, telling them that the DDI will be updated soon when in fact it's going to be completely changed.

I'd like for some of the fans with their nose bent out of shape about the OGL to stop making false accusations of lying, even after they've been repeatedly called out for it, then lying low for awhile, then trying it yet again.

While I'm at it, I'd like a unicorn, too, since apparently I've got as great a shot at getting one.

 

[blalien]

I think you credit them with a lot greater resources than they actually have. WotC have a better understanding of the shape of their market than just about anyone else (Paizo might rival them), but there's much more that they don't know than that they do.

The example I had in mind is the Neverwinter book. When that was announced, the forums were full of "Waaaah, that's not what I wanted!" But I can guarantee you that Neverwinter was released above anything else because that's what Wizards felt would sell the most books.

Well, other than pulling PDF sales to combat piracy (which it didn't). Or replacing the offline Character Builder with an online version that took more than a year to get back to being almost as good. Or replacing the offline Monster Builder with an online version that has only just gained the ability to actually build monsters (and that incorrectly).

Yeah that's fair, I wasn't really thinking of the software when I said that. I understand completely why they got rid of the pdfs and put the builders online, so I can't fault them for that decision. But Wizards does have a history of bungling their software development. They should have outsourced the work to a company that can actually handle the job, they shouldn't have announced anything that wasn't ready for release, and they shouldn't have put up the online character and monster builders before they were done. So...three bad decisions, but at least none of them have to do with the actual content of D&D.

Actually you have to remove an additional 1-3 numbers on all monster defenses per tier, otherwise they're completely unhittable. Removing the enhancement bonuses from magical items is also necessary for reasons stated before. And while I am considering a change like that I think it's good to have at least someone poke at the designers with the request.

I doubt that will ever become an official rule. There's a psychological benefit to seeing those little numbers going up, and getting rid of that would be too big a change. There are plenty of other RPGs that aren't about leveling up and stat increases.

 

[ourchair]

I just wanted to chip in and say that I am glad none of you are designing 5e.

Agreed.

Some of these suggestions, especially the ones involving minimal dice rolling,
fixed monster/player math, etc. are completely different games.

And I say that as someone who enjoys playing those kinds of games.

I have a lot of problems with 4th Edition, many of them the same problems everybody does, but most of these suggestions read like "I wish D&D played like my favorite non-D&D system."

 

[ourchair]

I actually like SM's posts. She has a fun, engaging voice that makes for an entertaining read. And what she's doing is marketing, rather than game design - in theory, she's there to speak to the female demographic. The only think they're doing wrong with her column is putting it behind the paywall.

I wouldn't call Mazzanoble irrelevant or useless, but if she's there to speak to the female demographic, she's not doing a great job.

My gaming circle has a ration of 7 female gamers to 5, and those females have mixed -- not necessarily overwhelmingly negative -- feelings about her writing.

At best, her writing can be hilarious and full of tongue in cheek flavor and at worse it's grating, condescending and insulting to womynkind. As in "OHAI, I'm a gurl, i like girly things and D&D isn't that funny?"

 

[CroBob]

Realistically, you're right. But the source material is full of characters who are adventurers first and foremost, and yet somehow find the time to be the absolute best in their (sometimes unrelated) field. That's just part of the fantasy.

I get that, it simply doesn't settle well with me. I prefer playing such things, not ruling them.

If we look at the 3e skill rules for a moment, a first level character with maxed Craft generally would be able to make the DC for forging a decent sword at the outset of his career, and a masterwork sword after just a few levels. (Indeed, IIRC the default demographics would tend to indicate most villages would have a few Expert characters of higher than 1st level - so finding a village smith who could forge a masterwork sword wouldn't be all that difficult.)

That first level smith could make decent weapons, with the masterwork swords after a few levels... but it takes a commoner forever to gain levels, generally. Whereas this smith finds a good swordsman and starts teaching him his trade, the swordsman leaves for a month or two to kill monsters, get rich, and save the maiden, and when he comes back, he's a better smith than his master!

However, in order to become the legendary swordmaker, Hatori Hanzo, you need more than a few levels under your belt. Only a decade or more of direct experience using such weapons would give the insight needed to make such a blade. (Or something. Or Hatori Hanzo is just an NPC with many levels of Expert or their equivalent.)

Actually using a sword would help you figure out how to better make it just like making a sword would let you better learn to use it. There is a small amount of synergy there, no doubt, but I'm pretty sure swordsmiths don't go ahead and make swords without bothering to ever figure out how swords actually work! In the game, yes, you can explain it, but that doesn't mean it makes sense, ultimately.

What if we reversed this? What if we had a monk who did nothing but meditate and lead other, younger monks in the ways of his mental and physical discipline? This monk never got in a fight in his life. Suddenly, some Big Bad attacks his monistary, and it ends up this super old monk literally kicks the Big Bad's ass. The wondering fighter (with a lot of experience actually fighting) who got wooped by that Big Bad not a week earlier wouldn't find that a little strange?

 

[delericho]

I get that, it simply doesn't settle well with me. I prefer playing such things, not ruling them.

That's our disconnect, there.

That first level smith could make decent weapons, with the masterwork swords after a few levels... but it takes a commoner forever to gain levels, generally. Whereas this smith finds a good swordsman and starts teaching him his trade, the swordsman leaves for a month or two to kill monsters, get rich, and save the maiden, and when he comes back, he's a better smith than his master!

Actually using a sword would help you figure out how to better make it just like making a sword would let you better learn to use it. There is a small amount of synergy there, no doubt, but I'm pretty sure swordsmiths don't go ahead and make swords without bothering to ever figure out how swords actually work! In the game, yes, you can explain it, but that doesn't mean it makes sense, ultimately.

Yeah, I don't actually disagree with any of this. It's just a difference in styles. (As I said, realistically speaking you're right!)

What if we reversed this? What if we had a monk who did nothing but meditate and lead other, younger monks in the ways of his mental and physical discipline? This monk never got in a fight in his life. Suddenly, some Big Bad attacks his monistary, and it ends up this super old monk literally kicks the Big Bad's ass. The wondering fighter (with a lot of experience actually fighting) who got wooped by that Big Bad not a week earlier wouldn't find that a little strange?

Like Yoda vs Dooku?

(Actually, bad example. Yoda vs Dooku sucked worse than Midichlorians. )

 

[delericho]

The example I had in mind is the Neverwinter book. When that was announced, the forums were full of "Waaaah, that's not what I wanted!" But I can guarantee you that Neverwinter was released above anything else because that's what Wizards felt would sell the most books.

Ah, I see. You realise that that was almost nothing at all to do with giving the people what they wanted, and a lot more about tying in to the upcoming video game? Likewise, "The Book of Vile Darkness" is a tie in to the film. (And I thought there was a third tie in coming up, but I cannot for the life of me think what it is.)

but at least none of them have to do with the actual content of D&D.

That's true, but of course decisions that have to do with the content are much more a matter of opinion.

Personally, I would argue that their decision to publish so many books so quickly was a mistake - they've introduced massive option bloat to 4e and mined out their product line far too fast.

I would also argue that Fortune Cards were a massive mistake. But that's probably just my utterly irrational hate of the things talking.

But, yeah, when it comes to the content of D&D, I would tend to agree that they haven't made any truly bad mistakes recently.